I've actually realised what my problem with this is. When I was in 1st Year, I made up a nemonic to remember the planets, "Madonna Vanishes Everytime Michael Jackson Sings Unusual New Popsongs," and now it just doesn't work. GOSH DARN IT!
Poll: Pluto, is it still a planet?
- Thread starter DanielPowell33
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Someone much smarter than me told me it's not a Planet... I'm gonna trust them.
Because honestly, if we believe everything that we were told a long time ago then we would still believe the planet is flat, is the center of the universe, and everything orbits us on glass spheres...
We've advanced so much in Astronomy that they finally realized that Pluto doesn't have the characteristics of a "Planet". There are objects in our galaxy that are like Pluto but aren't "Planets" so Pluto shouldn't be a planet either.
Because honestly, if we believe everything that we were told a long time ago then we would still believe the planet is flat, is the center of the universe, and everything orbits us on glass spheres...
We've advanced so much in Astronomy that they finally realized that Pluto doesn't have the characteristics of a "Planet". There are objects in our galaxy that are like Pluto but aren't "Planets" so Pluto shouldn't be a planet either.
It's not that it changed, it's that we'd never actually had a real definition of the word before. Scientists got together and finally decided it needed to be defined. Pluto didn't make the cut, that's all there is to it.Rex Dark said:
As much as I don't really care, it is pretty stupid that it isn't now. Isn't it still techincally a planet since it's a dwarf planet?
It's classified as a dwarf planet. If we classify it as a planet there a many, many other objects in our solar system that would also have to be classified as planets. You've got to draw the line somewhere.
They're bumping it back up to planet status now, because they finally decided on the definition of a planet. Because what exactly defines a planet? something that has mass and a gravitational pull? that would be any object, anywhere. A planet is defined at something that has sufficient mass as to be roughly spherical in shape.
So basically, pluto, the moon, and those other "dwarf planets" around Sol are gonna be defined now as planets. =]
So basically, pluto, the moon, and those other "dwarf planets" around Sol are gonna be defined now as planets. =]
It has the spirit of the planet and the body of kuiper belt object. Are you defined by what's in you or what you look like? I say planet
And yes, I talked to Pluto just last week, it really does have the spirit of a planet.
And yes, I talked to Pluto just last week, it really does have the spirit of a planet.
I think that even though Pluto isn't big enough or doesn't dominate its gravitational field doesn't mean that should take away its planet-dum.
I completely agree maybe we should execute them with a replica of said planet just to add to their deaths a bit.fix-the-spade said:
The word planet has been basically an arbitrary categorization. For it to be a useful term, it should have a consistent definition. If the most useful and consistent definition disallows Pluto to qualify, then we should cease to consider Pluto a planet for scientific discussion. However, that doesn't mean you personally cannot consider Pluto a planet. You can do whatever you want with it, it's just a word. Just recognize that you're departing from the conventional scientific meaning when you use it that way. As for me, I consider Pluto a dog.
You have a contradiction in your posts. You say this isn't subjective, but all definitions are subjective. We made them up. Just because some things are defined by groups with an education doesn't make the definitions any less subjective. If scientists had defined planet as "Those things circling the sun planet like (as opposed to moon-like) that got enough attention as a planetary type object" then pluto would still be in. If scientists had said "Those object circling the sun planet like, and here are the nine named ones" it would still be in. Granted, the dividing line isn't completely arbitrary as we can see differences from one group (the 8 recognized planets) and the oddballs (Pluto and Vesta) but if we look hard enough we can find any number of qualifiers to use to define planet.vivaldiscool said:
So here's a question: Why do the scientists who didn't actually discover the planets get to define what is and isn't a planet? Why not look for those qualifiers that led to the discovery of the 9 planets and use that as a defining quality? Pluto could be the planetary representative of the Kupier Belt, sort like an ambassador that fits in both the group they're from and the group they're entreating.
Wait, it's classified as a dwarf planet? Do the scientists know that due to elementary level grammar that it's still a planet?
Adj: Dwarf, N: planet.
Anyway, who cares? It's a giant rock in space. Fun to blow up, and it looks shiny in the sky, but that's it.
Adj: Dwarf, N: planet.
Anyway, who cares? It's a giant rock in space. Fun to blow up, and it looks shiny in the sky, but that's it.
Because, I still think of it as a planet, I was tought in school that it was a planet, and it's been "officially" a planet for most of my life, and just cuz some scientist says its no longer a planet doesn't mean im going to change my views about it.suhlEap said:
I just thought most people would think the same way.
